A small aside on one suggestion by Philippe Verdy: > This also suggests a new separate general category for the abstract > symbols/traits encoded for such complex scripts, instead of assigning > them in "gc=Lo" or defining them as unrelated symbols in "gc=S*" : > possibly "gc=Lx" ?
That would run afoul of one of the Unicode Character Encoding Stability Policy guarantees: http://www.unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html#Property_Value To wit: "The General_Category property values will not be further subdivided." *If* characters for SignWriting are ever encoded in the Unicode Standard, the precedent followed would almost certainly be that of musical symbols: they would be given gc=So (Other_Symbol), and any particularities regarding layout would be handled by other mechanisms. Incidentally, as an aside, I consider it most unlikely that anything approaching a generic glyph description language would ever be encoded as Unicode *characters*. Such problems clearly belong in other realms than character encoding per se. --Ken
